As any attorney can do with any client, a PGAL clearly has the right to argue on a child client’s behalf, and the Utah Code makes clear that a PGAL can express a child client’s “intentions and desires”. (See Utah Code Section 78A-2-705(13)(d))
When a PGAL tells a court, “I’ve spoken to my client, and based upon those discussions, I can tell you that his/her intentions and desires are . . .” is hearsay or, at the very least, inferential hearsay. It can’t be anything else. Such a hearsay declarant is at least subject to cross examination (URE 806).
There is a pervasive belief among Utah family law attorneys and judicial officers that a child represented by a PGAL cannot even be cross-examined. There is no legal authority for this. Indeed, all legal authority is to the contrary.
Children testify in Utah juvenile court proceedings, and when they do, they often do under various circumstances (regarding child custody and parent-time) that are substantively indistinguishable from testifying in a child custody and parent-time in a divorce or district court child custody case. When district courts try to make a distinction between testifying in juvenile court and barring testimony in district court, they fail. They must. It is a distinction without difference.
I really do not understand why everyone frames (or tries to frame) asking questions of children who are the subject of a child custody and/or parent-time dispute as inherently harmful to children. One can ask certain questions that harm, or elicit answers that harm, but all forms of questioning are not innately harmful to children. Moreover, there is a level of harm that is, frankly, justified when the value of the testimonial evidence elicited is greater than the harm caused or that may be caused (it’s why we jail witnesses who are afraid to testify against the mob, yet put them in witness protection). Where there’s a will, there’s a way.
Unless they are very young, children are not so ignorant as to have no idea what is happening in a child custody dispute case. They know that if there is a dispute over custody that one parent will be unhappy. The children aren’t surprised when one parent or both parents try to lobby to support their candidacy for “best parent” or “custodial parent”. They aren’t surprised if a court wants to know what the children have experienced, how children feel, and what the children want on the subject of the child custody and parent-time awards.
There are clearly ways to obtain valuable evidence that children and only children are uniquely able to provide (in the form of their about their experiences, observations, feelings, opinions, preferences, and desires on the subject without it harming or unduly harming them.
You might be able to verify whether your lawyer is telling the truth about his/her winning record if the lawyer is willing to give you the information about the case number, the parties, and the opposing lawyer, so that you could—with that information in hand—inquire with the opposing party and the opposing lawyer to see whether they can verify what your lawyer claims is true.
Lawyers’ reputation for lying is, unfortunately, well-founded. There is a Bosnian proverb, “He who will lie for you will lie to you.” Lawyers who lie for their clients (and there are plenty of them) have surely lied to their clients too.
Some do (if you can imagine an attorney doing something like that, it’s probably already been done), but they’re outliers, and they are violating both the law and the rules governing fitness to practice law if and when they do so.
If an attorney is actually (actually) violating the law or violating the rules governing the practice of law, you are not obligated to suffer it. Notify your attorney and bring the misconduct to the attention of the court, the police, and the bar.
That stated, one cannot simply and subjectively brand an attorney of being a stalker or of engaging in harassing behavior and thus establish the attorney as a stalker or harasser. It’s common for sore losers to make false accusations of harassment against an opposing party and his/her attorney. Why? Because it’s a cheap, risk-free way to cast aspersions and demonize and neutralize (if the accusations stick to any degree) the opposing party and/or his/her attorney. Don’t be that guy/gal. If you think you may feel “stalked” and/or “harassed,” before your start accusing, be honest with yourself and ask whether you’re truly being stalked and harassed or just feeling defeated, hurt, angry, anxious, and afraid and wanting to lash out.
If your attorney calls you, it’s important. Take the call, and if you can’t take the call, then call back ASAP (meaning same day, and not at 4:47 p.m.). Hours can often make the difference between winning and losing. If your lawyer is desperately trying to get in touch with you in the morning and you don’t respond until later that day, or worse, days later, it may be too late. Really. No, really.
So, you have gotten news that your attorney has quit. Your attorney wrote you an email informing you that he or she your counsel either will soon withdraw as your counsel or has filed and served a notice of withdrawal of counsel. What does this mean? How does this work?
Did you not pay your lawyer? Were you not cooperating with your lawyer? Were you disregarding your lawyer’s advice? Actively working against your lawyer? Sabotaging your own case?
Was the case just too much for your lawyer? Did your lawyer get sick or did an emergency arise that requires all of his/her attention? Could your lawyer sense that you were disappointed in your lawyer’s performance and didn’t want to stick around?
Regardless of what the reason was, you no longer have or will soon not have legal counsel. You will need to find another lawyer to represent you.
You may believe that you could do better than your legal counsel. You wouldn’t be the first to think that way. You are likely frightfully mistaken. Unless you are a genius who can learn in weeks what it take others years to master, you will not get a good enough handle on the legal system in time. Even if you did master the law, that doesn’t mean you can succeed as well as a lawyer could.
The law on the books is not always the law handed down in court. Insiders have, and will always have, an advantage over those who aren’t legal professionals.
And the legal profession is not kind to those who “did not pay their dues” in law school and by taking the bar exam. Pro se litigants (i.e., people who represent themselves in court cases) who are the equals of lawyers in their writing and oral arguments make most lawyers feel inferior and threatened (and that includes the former lawyers who are now judges). When pro se litigants are so “presumptuous” as to think they will be taken as seriously as the lawyers, the system tends to discriminate against the pro se litigants. So even if your lawyer is nothing more than a useful prop, get one.
Thank you for asking this question. It comes at a time when I’ve been thinking about this very subject.
I am the first lawyer in my family. I am also, at this point, the only lawyer in my family. I’ve been practicing law for 25 years, and while I did not exclusively practice family law at the beginning of my career, I practiced family law throughout my career, and focused purely on family law for the last 13 years. I chose to practice family law because I got tired of this scenario:
Potential client: Somebody did me wrong to the tune of $20,000, and I’d like to know how much it will cost for me to sue him to get a judgment against him for $20,000.
Me: It will cost you about $20,000 to sue him to get a judgment for $20,000.
Potential client: Hmmm, so I have to pay $20,000 to get $20,000? That still means I’m out $20,000.
Me: No, it’s worse than that. It will cost you $20,000 to sue him to get a judgment for $20,000, if you get a judgment for $20,000 against him, and even if you do get the judgment for $20,000 against him, that doesn’t mean you’re guaranteed to collect that $20,000 judgment. You will likely have to spend more time and effort after obtaining the judgment against him to collect the $20,000, and that’s if he actually has $20,000 that you can collect.
Potential client: Then it seems to me that it doesn’t take a genius to realize that odds are I’d be better off just cutting my losses and not suing.
Me: Agreed. Suing people to recover damages is, for most people, a losing proposition, in my experience.
It was good advice, but as you may have guessed, I didn’t make any money dispensing such advice.
Personal injury is too much of a money grab. Of course those who were wrongfully injured deserve compensation for their losses, but that has about as much to do with personal injury practice as that trip to Vegas has to do with being a necessary business expense.
I didn’t like criminal defense because I got tired of A) guilty people wanting my help to avoid accountability and B) dealing with those prosecutors and judges who at best don’t much value innocence and at worst fraudulently disregard it.
So what makes family law any different? While divorce and child custody disputes are also often matters of throwing good money after bad, you at least possess something you haven’t yet lost and that you may, if you can persuade the court that your just cause is just, still hold onto after all the litigation dust settles. Fighting for your children, your home, and your livelihood are some of the last things people should give up on. This is one of the reasons why I became a family lawyer. It’s a good fight.
What issues in divorce and family law that do not drown in a vast sea of lies are difficult–at times impossible–to detect in and among the fraudulent froth, which breeds cynicism and apathy in most judges. Knowing this, judges’ credulity fatigue leads to perfunctory, “I don’t need to hear any more” and “your guess is as good as mine” decisions. Knowing this, lawyers and litigants too often either deliberately take an ends justify the means approach or a “who knows what’ll work; let’s see what sticks to the wall” approach. Litigants abuse lawyers who abuse judges who abuse litigants in a vicious circle. Nothing destroys one’s faith in the legal system more or faster than experience with the legal system. The practice of family law is soul sucking. While our legal system is fairly well designed, it is, in general, poorly administered at every level from the judges on down to the lawyers and to the litigants. While there are some good people working within the system, there are not enough of them to make a meaningful difference in most cases, to say nothing of all cases. This is the other reason I practice family law; it’s the only practice niche where—because I know through hard-won experience where the quicksand, snakes, and tigers are, and how to avoid them, if not always defeat them—I can still do some good some of the time more often than in any other practice niche, and thus I can earn the money I charge for my services.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
What advice would you give to someone who has just become one of the parties in a divorce proceeding?
#1. Know this: divorce law and the divorce process are almost surely not what you think they are. They are scarier, more complex, more confusing, more time-consuming, more expensive, more disappointing, and more discouraging than you can imagine. Ignore my words at your peril.
#2. Don’t sign anything your spouse asks you to sign without reviewing it with a good divorce lawyer. Don’t let what your spouse tells you about “how it’s gonna be” upset or worry you. Don’t believe him/her when he/she says, “My lawyer says you must ______” or “I have the best lawyer in town.” Most of what your spouse tells you will be lies meant to intimidate, coerce, and dupe you.
#3. Don’t take friends’ and family members’ advice as as substitute for the advice of a good attorney. Your friends and family members usually mean well, but have no idea what they’re talking about.
#4. Keep an eye on your valuable things and information. They tend to disappear once a divorce is filed. Secure:
your financial accounts against your spouse draining them;
your important documents (this is not an exhaustive list):
tax records
loan/debt records, loan and credit applications
appraisals/valuations
bank/financial institution records
insurance records
birth certificates
Social Security cards
passports (for you and the kids)
pay stubs
account statements
certificates of title
estate planning records
business records
medical and health care records (for every member of the family)
photographs
your prenuptial or postnuptial agreement, if you have one
etc.
Inventory everything (take videos and photographs of it all) that you own (both jointly and separately);
make sure your password-protected accounts (e-mail, cell phone, social media, credit cards, bank/financial institution accounts, bills to pay, financial accounts, credit cards, etc.) cannot be accessed by your spouse without your advance knowledge and consent;
route your personal mail to a P.O. Box to which only you have access;
#5. Don’t act out of fear or anger or revenge. If you do, you may do your case irreparable damage. Keep a cool head. Get a good divorce attorney’s advice.
#6. Talk to a good divorce lawyer (not just any lawyer, not just any divorce lawyer, but a good divorce lawyer) now. Right now. Not next week. Now. Right now. Pick up the phone and make an appointment with a good divorce lawyer right now. Timing can and usually is crucial in divorce.
The longer you put off speaking with a good divorce lawyer the more you lose (possibly forever) the benefits of knowing what you can and should be doing right now to protect and preserve your interests and those of your children (if you have minor children).
Notice that I did not write “hire a good divorce lawyer right now.” If you can hire a good divorce lawyer right now, do it. The sooner you get competent legal representation the better. No exceptions.
But if you do not have (or falsely believe you do not have) the money to afford a good divorce lawyer, scrape together enough money to meet and confer with a good divorce lawyer for an hour. It will be one of the best investments you ever make.
A good divorce lawyer is not a bulldog. A good divorce lawyer is not a shark. a good divorce lawyer is not someone who is effective at cheating ( as the old Bosnian proverb goes, “He who will lie for you will lie to you.”) A good divorce lawyer is someone with experience, skill, and decency. These kinds of divorce lawyers exist, but are very hard to find. But they are worth finding. If you want your divorce to be less expensive, less time-consuming, and less miserable, find this kind of good divorce lawyer.
#7. Unless you are young, penniless, childless, and convinced your spouse won’t or can’t hang you out to dry in divorce, don’t go the DIY route. Hire a good divorce lawyer, if at all possible.
If you:
earn money or receive money from other sources
are self-employed
own property of any kind
have money in the bank, investment accounts, or tied up in a pension and/or retirement accounts
have debts and obligations
are financially dependent upon your spouse
have a spouse who is financially dependent on you (in full or in part)
have minor children
are married to a malicious or crazy-malicious person
have been accused of abusing your spouse or children,
then odds are high that trying to divorce without a good lawyer’s representation throughout the divorce case is going to be absolutely miserable.
While I cannot speak for all jurisdictions and for all situations, generally an attorney to whom you have paid a retainer or advance deposit is obligated to return the unearned portion of that retainer/deposit if you terminate that attorney’s services, especially if you terminate the attorney’s services within days of retaining the attorney.
You will need to read your contract/representation agreement that you have with your attorney and gain an understanding of the ethical rules that govern attorney compensation in your jurisdiction to determine if there are exceptions to this general principle.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
Do attorneys ever have to represent relatives or is that a conflict of interest?
I will give my personal opinion (as a lawyer, but not as a lawyer giving anyone any particular legal advice) as it applies in the jurisdiction where I practice divorce and family law (Utah).
There is no inherent conflict of interest in an attorney representing a relative simply by virtue of the client being a relative. There is no inherent conflict of interest in an attorney representing a relative against another relative either simply by virtue of the client being a relative.
If you learn that the opposing party’s attorney is a relative of that party, that is not a conflict of interest that would disqualify that attorney from representing that party.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
Clearly, acting in haste is risky behavior in any situation. Deciding to divorce is no exception. Rushing into divorce could result in an unnecessary divorce. Rushing into divorce could show your hand too early and result in losing on certain issues on which you might otherwise have won had you just been more careful and contemplative before you acted.
Many people rush into divorce because they believe that it is better to act on the impulse rather than “chicken out”. There is, however, a clear difference between failing to act because of fear (that’s chickening out) and going off half-cocked.
Procrastination often does hurt people who would have benefited from filing for divorce sooner than later. Many people who can and should divorce do not divorce by allowing fear and uncertainty cloud their judgment. While you shouldn’t put off until tomorrow what you can do today, few people benefit from filing for divorce the moment they have the idea. There are so many advantages to preparing in advance that are lost or just not possible if you rush into a divorce without knowing your objectives and having a plan* in place first. The point is to take action when action is warranted. You won’t know that without first taking sufficient time to take stock of your situation, consider your options, weigh the pros and cons, and then act. Divorce is rarely a decision to take lightly.
One of the best ways to help you determine whether you should file for divorce, and whether you should file now or later, is to seek the opinions of professionals in the areas of family and law. Initial consultations with a good marriage and family therapist and a good divorce lawyer don’t cost a lot, and their value far outweighs the financial outlay. Find out if your marriage is salvageable and worth saving. Find out if the problem with your marriage and family is you. If you determine that divorce is what you need (as opposed to want) to do, talk to a good divorce lawyer about what you can expect to receive (and not receive) in a divorce, what the divorce laws are in your jurisdiction, and how the process works (they not what you think, I’ll guarantee you that).
Whenever you can, you should make an informed decision. Deciding to divorce is no exception.
—————-
* Bear in mind that while things rarely go according to plan, “In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable.” – Dwight D. Eisenhower
“No plan of operations can with any certainty reach beyond the first encounter with the enemy.” – Helmet Von Moltke
Then why prepare plans when they rarely work out as imagined and hoped? Because planning still helps you, even when your plan is not a complete success or even when it is a total failure. Why? How? Planning and the resulting plans help you determine what matters to you most and what you are can do and are willing to do (or not do) to achieve those ends. Planning helps you think in both the short- and long-term about what choices you make and what their consequences could be to you. The more you know what really matters and what you really need and want, plans reflect that. So when circumstances change, your plans change not reactively but deliberately and correctly in the service of your goals.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
I have yet to see the best of the best lawyers advertise, and the most likely explanation is that they don’t advertise because they don’t need to advertise.
But if you think this means any lawyer who doesn’t advertise “must be the best of the best,” you’d be wrong (that is, if I recall correctly, committing the fallacy of affirmative conclusion from a negative premise). While the best attorney’s do not advertise, that does not mean that any attorney who does not advertise is the best. Some lousy attorneys don’t advertise because they’re too poor or too lazy to advertise. Some excellent attorneys advertise (even though they might not need to do so).
But there are the truly elite lawyers who are so good that they don’t need to advertise—those who need their particular kind of service know (or know people who know) who they are.
Which brings up a good point: most advertising consists lies and deception. Anyone who buys any good or service based exclusively or even primarily upon the impression the advertising for that good or service made on the buyer is a fool. Advertising tries to find you. If you want quality, however, you must usually seek, define, and find it yourself.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
This blog is in response to a comment made to a video entitled How much should you trust your lawyer?
“The biggest problem I’ve encountered with attorneys isn’t legal competence but the “to a hammer, everything looks like a nail” problem. Emotions not motions is often the answer.”
I hear that frequently. And it is a good point, but 1) it means different things to different people and 2) it’s not as good a point an many people (particularly clients of lawyers) think.
Yes, there are attorneys who stir up trouble and litigate either because they know no other way or because it’s lucrative for them. But there are also attorneys who aren’t afraid to get their hands dirty and do the necessary and difficult work of making the sausage once a dispute is submitted to the court’s for resolution. Many clients find they don’t have the stomach for seeing how the sausage is made. They come to realize they didn’t understand just how difficult, time-consuming, and costly litigation is. Rather than admit that they made a mistake, they will often claim that the lawyers and the legal system are the problem.*
Many clients want to believe that “if we’d just talk it out, the opposing side and I could work it out.” This is true in some, but not all, cases. If “we can work it out between us ourselves, without involving attorneys and the courts” were true, most people who hire lawyers wouldn’t hire lawyers because they would have no reason and no need to hire lawyers.
The fact is that many people can’t or won’t resolve their differences voluntarily between them. They take positions that they feel are irreconcilable, and when that happens, one or both of them resorts to litigation.
Subsequently, the clients who hire lawyers get frustrated (and many times justifiably so) with how needlessly and/or inexplicably expensive, slow/inefficient, and nerve wracking the legal process is. That’s often when the parties on both sides of the dispute suddenly “see the light” and “wonder why” they are engaged in litigation when all they need to do is speak from the heart.
Experiencing the miseries of litigation often motivates the parties to believe it’s better for them to settle out of court. Somehow they come to see that a dispute that the parties thought was irreconcilable becomes something they can and should quickly and simply compromise.
*I personally believe that many court procedures and systems are either outright designed or at least administered in such a way as to make the process miserable, so that the parties will settle their case out of court (thus relieving the burden on the legal system). This is wrong, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
The more power to be entrusted, the higher the stakes, the less I trust anyone under such conditions.
Many of us find or will find ourselves in a situation where we must retain an attorney’s services. Essentially, it must be done, we have no real choice. Not retaining an attorney is worse than going it alone.
Even then, hiring a lawyer does not relieve you of responsibility for your own case, of responsibility for protecting/advancing your interests. A good lawyer is a means of improving and augmenting your ability to do this, but only as long as you remain vigilant personally. If you don’t understand what your lawyer is doing or advising you to do, but “trust” that your lawyer is doing right by you, you’re just being lazy. If and when you fail to make informed decisions, you’re needlessly risking disappointment and failure, and that’s on you. You are responsible to find the best lawyer you can. I consider a good lawyer to be someone who is as honest and fair as he/she is skilled as a jurist and litigator. Don’t hire a mercenary, a shark. This calls to mind the proverb “He who will lie for you will lie to you.”
Remember: a lawyer you can and should trust is not a lawyer who is infallible. Even the most trustworthy, skilled attorney cannot control the opposing parties, witnesses, law enforcement and court personnel, or the judge(s). Sometimes an attorney’s best advice fails. Any choice as to how to handle a legal matter is not without trade-offs and risks. That’s not a matter of how trustworthy your lawyer is.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
Is there anything illegal about a previous lawyer wanting to charge their ex client for a copy of their case file?
I can’t answer for all jurisdictions, but in Utah the answer is:
If you were previously given your case file or previously given a copy of your file—and lost those—so now you want another copy of your file (and assuming your lawyer still has a copy of your file), then it’s fair for your former lawyer to charge you a reasonable fee for the cost of making you another copy of your file. You’re not entitled to a free copy or copies.
If you were not previously given your case file or previously given a copy of your file, then Rule 1.16(d) of the Utah Supreme Court Rules of Professional Practice – Rules of Professional Conduct provides: “The lawyer must provide, upon request, the client’s file to the client. The lawyer may reproduce and retain copies of the client file at the lawyer’s expense.” Thus, if you have not requested a copy of your file, you are entitled to your file (not a copy, the file itself).
How long must your attorney keep your file after representation terminates? I’ve been told no less than three and no more than five years. Rule 1.15(a) provides, “[O]ther property shall be kept by the lawyer and shall be preserved for a period of five years after termination of the representation.” So if representation terminated more than 5 years ago, your old lawyer is not required to keep your file any longer, and so if you want a copy of your file then, you are likely out of luck.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
What do you think would be the rate of divorce in marriages if psychologists were to be consulted in court by couples before proceeding to see the lawyer for divorce?
Your intentions are good, your proposal won’t work.
Short answer: forcing people to consult a psychologist as a prerequisite to obtaining a divorce would A) likely cause no appreciable reduction in the divorce rate and B) would surely not justify the costs associated with it.
You appear to base your idea on several false assumptions:
First, that professionals are infallible. They are not. That includes psychologists. Merely consulting a psychologist does not mean you will get competent care or advice from any and all psychologists. And the purpose of psychologists isn’t to talk people in or out of anything anyway, so forcing people to speak with a psychologist with the goal of reducing divorce likely would present some ethical conflicts that would cause many psychologists to balk.
Second, that nary a professional (including psychologists) is motivated by self-interest. Plenty are. Some psychologists know that if they advocate for more psychologist involvement in the court systems, then that means more work for psychologists through the court systems. And so they do and say what they need to do and say to keep the work flowing, regardless of whether they feel that what they do and say is what is needed or warranted.
Third, that most divorces are due to mental illness or other mental or emotional pathologies or disorders. While many divorces can be traced to mental and/or emotional problems in one or both spouses, not every divorce can be. Thus, requiring everyone who files for divorce to consult a psychologist would be a waste of time, money, and resources.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
One thing my boss, attorney Eric Johnson, has told me that has had an impact on my view of law is the idea that law was traditionally supposed to be a healing profession. I myself will be starting law school soon and will be learning more comprehensively the ins and outs of the legal profession, and I think that the best lawyers that I have seen seek to bring their clients healing.
There is an important distinction I need to make here. I am afraid that there are some out there who would think that what I am saying is that good lawyers get their clients what they want or avoid conflict. That is not what healing is in my opinion. You would not want a doctor who only performs you the procedure that you want at the expense of the procedure that you need. To truly bring about justice and appropriate mercy, a good lawyer must uphold the law, and that means not just giving the client what the client wants. It also means not running from conflict every time it arises because conflict is part of life (and some conflicts can be resolved only by confronting and overcoming them, not avoiding or compromising them). The healing comes from doing what is right by your client but also what is fair to the opposing party. Healing comes at times through conflict, but keeping an eye on what the absolute truth of any given situation is, at least when it comes to the law.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
What should I say to my lawyer who told me that a motion to dismiss isn’t really a thing so we cannot file one?
It may be that a motion to dismiss is in fact not possible (not permitted by the rules under the circumstances of your case) or not wise under the circumstances (possible, but a bad idea), even though you believe otherwise. a lot of people are familiar with certain legal jargon without knowing what it means, and they often throw it around ignorantly and inaccurately.
I can’t tell you how many times clients have come to me believing they have rights to do this or rights not to do that, only to find out that their understanding was erroneous.
A few examples: thinking you have a right to certain documents (or every document known to man) under the “Freedom of Information Act”, believing you don’t have to answer provide requested documents or answer certain questions in a deposition or at trial if they claim that the information sought from them is “private” or “confidential,” believing that because they know the truth/right thing to do, the court must agree with them.
If you have an idea and your lawyer shoots it down without you understanding why, don’t be afraid to ask your lawyer to explain it to you. If your lawyer can’t do that, your idea may not be so bad (but instead your lawyer may not be up to the task).
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
What should you do if you represented a client in a divorce who should not have gotten the kids, but got them due to your ability?
We have a word for those who do such things, who compromise their principles, who devote their talent and effort to an unworthy purpose for personal gain.
Prostitute.
Many lawyers (more than you likely comfortably believe) come up with all kinds of ways to rationalize and justify it (“everyone deserves a zealous advocate/defense,” “it’s not my place to judge,” “I was just doing what I was trained and paid to do,” etc.), but it’s all prostitution, pure and simple.
I went through a phase when I sincerely confused being clever with being a “skilled” attorney. There’s a great line from the movie adaptation of John Grisham’s “The Rainmaker”:
Every lawyer, at least once in every case, feels himself crossing a line that he doesn’t really mean to cross… it just happens… And if you cross it enough times it disappears forever. And then you’re nothin’ but another lawyer joke. Just another shark in the dirty water.
Fortunately, I quickly realized the error of my ways and just as quickly corrected them as well. I’m not perfect, but I aspire as best I can to do what is right and let the consequence follow. What Hugh Nibley had to say about God’s law applies equally to earthly law:
The legal aspects of are not what counts — the business of lawyers is to get around the law, but you must have it written in your hearts (Jeremiah 31:33), to keep it “with all thine heart, and with all thy soul,” because you really love the Lord and his law, which begins and ends with the love of God and each other (Deuteronomy 6:5). It must be a natural thing with you, taken for granted, your way of life as you think and talk about it all the time, so that your children grow up breathing it as naturally as air (Deuteronomy 6:7-9).
I have believed/believed in a client and won cases for clients who I have later learned was in the wrong, who was lying, who shouldn’t have won. I was just as duped as the court in cases like those. I don’t feel guilty or ashamed (I can’t), but I do feel used and demoralized.
“I’m not upset that you lied to me, I’m upset that from now on I can’t believe you.” – Friedrich Nietzsche
“One lie is enough to question all truth.” – Unknown
Ethical rules prohibit a lawyer from prostituting himself/herself. To cite the two most relevant:
Rule 3.1: Meritorious Claims & Contentions
A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. A lawyer for the defendant in a criminal proceeding, or the respondent in a proceeding that could result in incarceration, may nevertheless so defend the proceeding as to require that every element of the case be established.
Rule 3.3: Candor Toward the Tribunal
(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:
(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer;
(2) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or
(3) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client, or a witness called by the lawyer, has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonably believes is false.
(b) A lawyer who represents a client in an adjudicative proceeding and who knows that a person intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.
(c) The duties stated in paragraphs (a) and (b) continue to the conclusion of the proceeding, and apply even if compliance requires disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6.
(d) In an ex parte proceeding, a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the lawyer that will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
There are many websites with lots of free information that is good. The problem is being able to tell the good content from the bad. This is why, whether you intend to hire a lawyer to handle some or all parts of your divorce case, you need to read a lot to get a solid understanding of how divorce works—and not just the general concepts of divorce, but also how divorce works specifically in your jurisdiction (i.e., the state and county and city where you will be filing for divorce).
As for the best DIY divorce sites, I do not know of any completely free of charge sites, and I do not know which ones, if any, offer a free trial (if they did, most people would use the free trial and never pay). Again, you will want to review many of them to get a feel for what features they offer, how well these sites function, and how much they charge. You’ll want to find the site that caters to your skill level and budget without sacrificing the quality of their forms.
I worked closely with (but I am not employed, or paid by, or an owner of) the people who created ourdivorce.com, which I think is one of the best DIY divorce sites for divorce in the U.S.A. (not worldwide) because it was created from the ground up around the non-lawyer DIY divorce site user. It’s designed to make the process of divorce and the choices you and your spouse make along the way understandable and clear.
Remember: just because you are not a lawyer and just because you prepared your divorce forms yourself does not give you a “do over free” pass if the DIY forms you prepared were prepared incompletely, mistakenly, erroneously, or in any other a way that does not do what you wanted or intended. DIY divorce websites and forms are getting better and easier as technology advances, but they are still not a perfect substitute for a skilled lawyer’s help. So no matter which DIY site and forms you choose to use, BE SURE TO REVIEW THE FINAL PRODUCT WITH A SKILLED, EXPERIENCED LAWYER to ensure your forms are as you want them to be and as they need to be before you sign anything and before your file anything with the court.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277